A lot's been made about the weak way the Yanks got rid of Joe Torre, and I can't defend that. They should have just fired him and said that for his salary and with a $200 million a year payroll, you got to win a playoff series every three years, or you're done.
But either way, Torre's dismissal was long overdue. Everyone goes on about what a class act he is - fine. He's a nice guy. Great. He doesn't believe in ARod yelling at another player trying to catch a pop up, and he didn't see fit to order the Yankees to bunt against a gimpy Curt Schilling in the 2004 ALCS, even though Schilling was mowing them down. And most of the players liked him - why wouldn't they? They could lose in the playoffs despite making more than $15 million a year, and you weren't going to hear about it from Torre. The only guy that seemed to get flack from him was ARod (was demoted in the order in the playoffs and called out for his trying to distract Howie Clark on a popup) - and no one liked ARod anyway, so it wouldn't tarnish Torre's class act rep. Sheffield didn't like him, either, and Sheffield was also a marginal character in the media (and also a little crazy).
It seemed Torre's agenda to be the good guy conflicted with doing whatever it took to win. He wasn't a good motivator, and he wasn't a good tactician - read Joe Sheehan's columns at BP about his use of the bullpen. He was making a huge salary for a manager, and he had huge resource advantages. Yes, the 12 playoff appearances were great, but is it really as big an achievement under the circumstances? There are only five teams in the AL East now, three of which (Tampa, Toronto and Baltimore) haven't been good in a decade.
The bottom line is this: if he's truly a class act, well, virtue is its own reward. But I'm always suspicious of the guy the media decides to praise in that way because all that means is that he was gracious to them. No one calls Bill Belichick, Bill Parcells, Pat Riley or Phil Jackson a class act. Those guys were way too focused on winning to spend much energy on the perception of them by players and media.
The question that needs to be asked is: Did Torre do everything he could to win? Was he willing to bunt against an injured pitcher? Was he willing to call out overpaid veterans for lack of focus? Was he willing to use his closer in high-leverage, non-save situations? His robotic use of the bullpen strikes me as lazy and unimaginative.
Yes, he deserves credit for the team's run in the late 90s, because what was needed then was a low key guy who would keep the clubhouse on an even keel. But when you're going out that quietly in the playoffs for three years, keeping everything on an even keel seemed awfully complacent. The best coaches know how to shake things up when they need shaking up, and how to keep things cool when the need to be kept cool. Torre could do the latter, but the $200 million team of mercenaries needed the former the last three years, and he didn't have it in him. The Yankees were wise to move on, the cowardly manner in which they did so notwithstanding.